Perez v. Rash Curtis & Assocs.

IGNACIO PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. RASH CURTIS & ASSOCIATES, Defendant.

Case No. 4:16-cv-03396-YGR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

April 17, 2020

ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT; (2) DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE, RECONSIDER, AMEND, OR VACATE THE JUDGMENT'S UNCONSTITUTIONALLY EXCESSIVE DAMAGES; (3) DENYING MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS BASED UPON MISCONDUCT OF COUNSEL, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR NEW TRIAL, OR FURTHER RELIEF AS DETERMINED BY THE COURT; (4) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARD FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 371, 374, 379, 414

The context of this action is well-known. Plaintiff Ignacio Perez brings this putative class action against defendant Rash Curtis & Associates ("Rash Curtis") alleging that defendant called plaintiff and class members without consent, in violation of several laws. This case arises from Rash Curtis' alleged violations of the (i) Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. sections 227, et seq. (the "TCPA"); (ii) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1692, et seq. (the "FDCPA"); and (iii) the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code sections 1788, et seq., (the "Rosenthal Act"). On September 6, 2017, this Court certified the four classes with Perez as the class representative, both for injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and damages pursuant to Rule23(b)(3). Following a one-week trial, a jury found in favor of Perez and the class, and against defendant Rash Curtis, awarding over $267 million. At the close of trial, the Court encouraged the parties to attempt to settle the matter given the prospect of significant post-trial work, including appeals. Despite the size of the award, plaintiffs maintained a request for treble damages requiring additional judicial findings regarding willfulness. Ultimately, plaintiffs withdrew the request. Thereafter, the parties filed several post-judgment motions.

For its part, defendant Rash Curtis brings three motions, namely a motion: (1) to alter judgment or amend the judgment in favor of defendant (the "motion to alter or amend") (Dkt. No. 374); (2) to reduce, reconsider, amend, or vacate the judgment's unconstitutionally excessive damages (the "motion to reconsider") (Dkt. No. 379); and (3) to vacate the judgment and for terminating sanctions based upon misconduct of counsel, or, in the alternative, for new trial, or further relief as determined by the Court (the "motion to vacate"). (Dkt. No. 414.) Plaintiff Perez brings a motion for an award of attorneys' fee, costs, and expenses and service award for Perez (the "motion for attorneys' fees"). (Dkt. No. 371.)

Having carefully reviewed the record, the papers submitted on each motion, the parties' oral arguments at the hearings held on November 18, 2019, and February 26, 2020, and for the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: (1) the motion to alter or amend is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; (2) the motion to reconsider is DENIED; (3) the motion to vacate is DENIED; and (4) the motion for attorneys' fees is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

As the facts of the case are well-known, only the background relevant to the instant motions are summarized as follows. Thus:

On May 13, 2019, a jury verdict was entered that each member of the classes shall recover from defendant the amount of $500 per call made in violation of the TCPA, for an aggregate award in favor of the classes of $267,349,000.00. (Dkt. No. 347.) While the sum is large, the math was not, namely $500 for each of the calls identified in the evidence presented to the jury.

In response to the Court's order from the bench on May 13, 2019, the parties filed proposed final judgments on May 15, 2019. (Dkt. Nos. 353, 359.) Perez proposed a form of final judgment on the issues decided by the jury, and did not include any then outstanding or remaining issues to be decided. (Dkt. No. 359 at 1-3.) Rash Curtis submitted a letter brief stating that "anyjudgment that could be entered at this point in time would only be partial, not disposing of all claims, and thus not final." (Dkt. No. 353-1 at 1.) As of that date, Perez still maintained that the purported violations were willful and knowing within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C), and Rash Curtis argued that the statutory damage amount as applied here was unconstitutional. (Id.) Thus, Rash Curtis requested that "final judgment be held in abeyance while the parties negotiate settlement before Magistrate Hixson." (Id. at 2.)

On September 9, 2019, Perez withdrew the claim that defendant violated the TCPA "willfully or knowingly[,]" and requested that the Court enter "final judgment in the form that [was] previously submitted, Doc. 359." (Dkt.No. 369 at 1.) That same day, the Court entered Perez's previously submitted proposed final judgment as the final judgment in the case. (Dkt. No. 370.)

On September 23, 2019, Perez filed the motion for attorneys' fees. (Dkt. No. 371.) On October 7, 2019, Rash Curtis filed the motion to alter or amend, and the motion to reconsider. (Dkt. Nos. 374, 379.) After receiving a letter brief from plaintiff on October 15, 2019, (Dkt. No. 383) the Court stayed briefing on all then-pending motions, and indicated that the briefing schedule would be reset at the subsequent status conference to be set the week of October 21, 2019. (Dkt. No. 384.) The Court reset the briefing for these motions, and heard these motions, including a motion for approval of plaintiffs' proposed notice to class members, on November 17, 2019. (Dkt. No. 402.) At the hearing, the Court granted Perez's motion for approval of plaintiffs' proposed notice to class members. (Id.)

On January 21, 2020, Rash Curtis filed the motion to vacate which the Court heard on February 26, 2020. (Dkt. No. 414, 422.)

II. ANALYSIS

A. Motions to Alter Judgment or Amend the Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60 (Dkt. No. 374)

Under Rule 59(e), "a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion to amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) is appropriate if "(1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or factupon which the judgment is based; (2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in controlling law." Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Under Rule 60(b), "a court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, within reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

The parties' briefing identifies four issues, namely whether: (1) Rash Curtis meets the standards for altering or amending the final judgment; (2) the judgment should be amended to reflect that Rash Curtis prevailed on the TCPA claim for willful and/or knowing violations and on the request for injunctive relief; (3) the judgment should be amended to reflect the claims on which Rash Curtis prevailed at the summary judgment stage; and (4) the judgment should be amended to state that any residue of the class damages award which are not claimed by a member of the class is released back to defendant. The Court addresses each in turn below.

1. Whether the Appropriate Standards Are Met

Rash Curtis avers that the judgment should be amended under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50, 52, 59, and 60. Quoting Miller v. Transam Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983), Rash Curtis contends that "identifying the applicable Rule is not essential: a post-judgment motion's 'nomenclature is not controlling.'" (Dkt. 374 at 7.) Miller further provides that "[t]he court will construe it, however styled, to be the type proper for the relief requested." 709 F.2d at 527. See also Gonzales v. City of Antioch, No. 14-cv-04728-KAW, 2015 WL 8293834, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2015) ("The moving party's designation of any such motion [by which to obtain post-judgment relief] is not controlling."). Perez disputes that any of the standards toamend have been satisfied under Rules 50, 52, 59, and 60.

Perez's arguments do not fully persuade. The Court agrees that Rash Curtis does not meet the standards under Rules 50 or 52. First, Rule 50(a)(2) permits a party to move for judgment as a matter of law "at any time before the case is submitted to a jury," and Rule 50(b) permits a party whose motion for judgment as a matter of law was denied to "file a renewed motion" after the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50. Here, Rash Curtis did not make a motion under Rule 50 before the case was submitted to the jury, so this rule is inapplicable.

Second, Rule 52 applies "[i]n an action tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury." Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1). Here, there was a jury trial, and this rule is not otherwise applicable.

However, the Court finds that Rash Curtis is appropriately advancing arguments under Rules 59 and 60. Rash Curtis argues that the Court erred in entering the form of judgment proposed by plaintiff and class counsel...